CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ISSUES IMPORTANT NEW DECISION LIMITING LANDOWNER LIABILITY

December 19, 2005 – In Kinsman v. Unocal Corporation, a unanimous California Supreme Court today issued an important decision limiting the liability of landowners and others who retain contractors to perform contract work that is performed on the hiring party’s property. The Kinsman opinion is the latest in a series of six opinions, beginning with Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, in which the Supreme Court has generally limited the liability of landowners and others for injuries to contractors’ employees arising from the performance of the contractors’ work.

Our firm has either appeared in or consulted with counsel of record on many of the Privette cases, both in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and in trial courts. Horvitz & Levy partners David Axelrad and Stephen Norris represented Unocal in the proceedings before the Supreme Court in the present case. Mr. Norris presented oral argument on behalf of Unocal.

Plaintiff Ray Kinsman was an employee of a contractor (Burke & Reynolds) hired by Unocal to erect scaffolding used by insulators and other maintenance workers at a Unocal refinery during the early 1950’s. Kinsman was exposed to asbestos from insulation that was removed during the contract work. He later developed mesothelioma and sued Unocal for negligent failure to warn him of the risk of asbestos exposure.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of Kinsman and his wife, resulting in a $3.7 million judgment against Unocal. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial and the Supreme Court granted review to consider the circumstances in which a landowner can be liable for a dangerous condition on the landowner’s premises.

The Supreme Court agreed with Unocal that the premises liability instruction given to the jury was inadequate because it did not require the jury to consider whether Burke & Reynolds knew of asbestos risks at the time Kinsman’s work was performed at the Unocal refinery in the early 1950’s. The court concluded that a finding that Burke & Reynolds knew of the presence and danger of asbestos “would, under the principles articulated in the Privette line of cases and in [this] opinion, completely relieve Unocal of liability for any resultant employee injury.”

Click here to read the full text of the Kinsman opinion.

If you need further information regarding the Kinsman case or the Privette doctrine generally, please contact Mr. Axelrad or Mr. Norris at (818) 995-0800 or by e-mail to daxelrad@horvitzlevy.com or snorris@horvitzlevy.com.

www.horvitzlevy.com

If you do not wish to continue to receive these informational bulletins, please e-mail jpaul@horvitzlevy.com with a subject line "UNSUBSCRIBE."